ndirish2010 wrote:Note, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards homosexuals. The decisions in Lawrence and Romer are just wrong, regardless of ideology.

So was Brown v. Board wrong also? It was overturning policies implemented by a political majority based on animus toward a specific group?

No because I think the separate but equal doctrine was an erroneous application of the Equal Protection Clause. I'm not sure how any interpretation of the Due Process Clause can invalidate state laws like the one in Lawrence. It's obviously, as Justice Stewart would say, an "uncommonly silly law." But it's not unconstitutional.

No. Criminalizing consensual human behavior because people have antagonistic views based on religion ≠ requiring a optometrist prescription for new glasses.

ndirish2010 wrote:Note, this has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards homosexuals. The decisions in Lawrence and Romer are just wrong, regardless of ideology.

So was Brown v. Board wrong also? It was overturning policies implemented by a political majority based on animus toward a specific group?

No because I think the separate but equal doctrine was an erroneous application of the Equal Protection Clause. I'm not sure how any interpretation of the Due Process Clause can invalidate state laws like the one in Lawrence. It's obviously, as Justice Stewart would say, an "uncommonly silly law." But it's not unconstitutional.

No. Criminalizing consensual human behavior because people have antagonistic views based on religion ≠ requiring a optometrist prescription for new glasses.

I'm a big fan of Jackson. You can literally read his opinions as recreational prose

Well he typically contorts his ridiculous constitutional framework to meet some end. Like how he wants to limit federal power under the commerce clause, except where something like completely localized marijuana is involved. Then the commerce power gives them the power to regulate it.

Yeah... his opinions are littered with hypocritical bullshit like that.

People think Thomas is an idiot, and sometimes he is, but he's not the hypocrite that Scalia is.

I don't know. Thomas voted to uphold the partial birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, despite saying in every CC case that the CC only allows regulation of goods that actually cross state lines. Am I missing something with this? Isn't this hypocrisy of the highest order? How can he possibly twist himself into thinking a federal ban on certain abortion procedures is permissible? I know it wasn't a CC case for anyone else, but surely for him it should have been?

EDIT: Also, sweet necro? I just replied to something from like a year and a half ago.

I'm a big fan of Jackson. You can literally read his opinions as recreational prose

Well he typically contorts his ridiculous constitutional framework to meet some end. Like how he wants to limit federal power under the commerce clause, except where something like completely localized marijuana is involved. Then the commerce power gives them the power to regulate it.

Yeah... his opinions are littered with hypocritical bullshit like that.

People think Thomas is an idiot, and sometimes he is, but he's not the hypocrite that Scalia is.

I don't know. Thomas voted to uphold the partial birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, despite saying in every CC case that the CC only allows regulation of goods that actually cross state lines. Am I missing something with this? Isn't this hypocrisy of the highest order? How can he possibly twist himself into thinking a federal ban on certain abortion procedures is permissible? I know it wasn't a CC case for anyone else, but surely for him it should have been?

Did the Commerce Clause issue come up in Gonzalez v. Carhart? I only read a highly edited version, but you're right that under Thomas' prior concurrences/dissents in CC cases, he should have voted to strike down the law on that ground.

I’ve spoken maybe two times in the past decade, for Christ’s sake. Think about that. That’s hundreds and hundreds of cases during which I’ve sat silently and twiddled my thumbs as my colleagues actively interrogated lawyers and posed tough questions about the scope and applications of laws—cases to which I barely paid attention, sometimes appearing to nap on the bench. And I get to have a say in deciding on a constitutional level whether or not all adult members of the human race have the right to recognize their unions? That historic judgment falls on my shoulders?

I’ve spoken maybe two times in the past decade, for Christ’s sake. Think about that. That’s hundreds and hundreds of cases during which I’ve sat silently and twiddled my thumbs as my colleagues actively interrogated lawyers and posed tough questions about the scope and applications of laws—cases to which I barely paid attention, sometimes appearing to nap on the bench. And I get to have a say in deciding on a constitutional level whether or not all adult members of the human race have the right to recognize their unions? That historic judgment falls on my shoulders?

I thought this Onion article was one of the all-time most disappointing Onion articles. Good idea, but I didn't laugh once.

Wikipedia wrote:One of McReynolds' law clerks wrote "... in 1946 he [McReynolds] died a very lonely death in a hospital – without a single friend or relative at his bedside. He was buried in Kentucky, but no member of the Court attended his funeral though one employee of the Court travelled to Kentucky for the services." In contrast, as the clerk noted, when McReynolds's aged African-American messenger, Harry Parker, died in 1953, his funeral was attended by five or six Justices, including the Chief Justice.

Douglas called him "a militant crusader for social justice." He invented the right to privacy; advocated for government transparency ("sunshine is the best disinfectant"); was a vigorous defender of freedom of speech, and has been driving law students insane for 75 years by inventing the Eire doctrine.